Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

182 part two
ten words (Gig. 17). All the passages discussed occur in allegorical contexts.
Why does Philo quote them, even though they are not part of the Pentateuch?
The author suggests three reasons: (1) evidence or proof of a daring exegesis;
(2) illustration of an exegetical point being made; (3) offering fresh material
which allows the exegesis to be substantiated and advanced. A brief section of the
article also discusses other references to hymns and songs, e.g. in the accounts of
the Therapeutae and of the events in Alexandria involving the Prefect Flaccus.
The article ends with a discussion of Philo and the spirituality of the Psalms.
The full potential of that spirituality is certainly not exploited. On occasion it
is even toned down. Philo does not feel a need to exploit it because through
his use of the allegorical method he is already spiritualizing the Pentateuch.
(DTR)
20159. D.T.Runia,‘Philond’AlexandriadevantlePentateuque,’in
C. Dogniez and M. Harl (edd.), La Bible des Septante: Le Pentateuque
d’Alexandrie (Paris 2001) 99–105.
BriefaccountofPhilo’sdistinctiveinterpretationofthebooksofMosesaspart
of the Introduction to the publication of the translations of the entire Pentateuch
prepared by the project ‘La Bible d’Alexandrie’. Philo’s three commentaries are
discussed and attention is drawn to the diversity of interpretations which they
contain, which is at least partly explained by his debts to Alexandrian predecessors.
The survival of Philo’s works is a great stroke of luck, because they yield
insight into a very different kind of Judaism than is found in the Rabbinic tradition,
a form of Judaism which was later to exert considerable influence on the
Fathers of the Church. (DTR)
20160. K.-G. Sandelin, ‘Philo’s Ambivalence towards Statues,’ in D. T.
Runia and G. E. Sterling (edd.), In the Spirit of Faith: Studies in Philo
and Early Christianity in Honor of David Hay [= The Studia Philonica
Annual 13 (2001)], Brown Judaic Studies 332 (Providence RI 2001) 122–
138.
In his ways of handling statues, either as concrete phenomena or as elements
in figurative speculation, Philo demonstrates the difficulty he had in balancing
between the commitment to his Jewish religious heritage and his fondness for
the culture of the Greco-Roman world. He fights for monotheism and aniconic
religion against polytheism and worship of images. For his basic Jewish attitude
he every now and then finds support in ideas of a Platonic kind (e.g. Decal. 66–
67; Spec. 1.28–29; Gig. 59). Nevertheless, Sandelin argues, Philo cannot always
resist the fascination that statues of the gods exert on his mind. When in a non-
Jewish manner he evaluates them in positive terms, he reveals his indebtedness
to Platonism (cf. Opif. 69; Ebr. 88ff.).Thereexistsatthispointinhisthoughta
conflict between the Jewish and the Greek ideas that cannot be reconciled. (TS;
with the assistance of the author)